1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added a judgment on the argument in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Determination on the defendant's assertion in the trial room

A. The appraisal value assessed by the appraiser of the first instance court on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) is considerably low in the market price of each of the instant real estate, such as that the development gains are considerably low in and the amount of the Defendant’s rent revenue is excessive, and thus, the amount of the purchase price between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall not be calculated based thereon

B. Determination 1) If a project implementer exercises a right to demand sale under Article 39 of the former Act against a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project, the sale contract is established based on the market price of the land or building of the person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project, at the same time when the project implementer expresses his/her intention to exercise the right to demand sale. The market price is the objective market price of the land or building at the time when the right to demand sale was exercised, under the premise that the land or building will be removed due to aging or the current status where the housing reconstruction project was not implemented, rather than the market price based on the premise that the housing reconstruction project is implemented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009). The appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless there is any obvious fault, such as in light of the empirical rule or rationality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da14747, Feb. 274, 2007).